Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43494 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7530 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shilpi Tiwari,Suresh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Anil K. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 5 and 6. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for deciding representation preferred by petitioner for enquiry relating to false educational documents of Late Kamlesh Kumar on the basis of which allegedly he obtained employment. 3. It has been submitted that aforesaid Late Kamlesh Kumar obtained employment as Lekhpal in the year, 1987 on the basis of false documents and thereafter he passed away during his service. It is submitted that at the time of entry in service, the said person submitted a false and fabricated transfer certificate of Class-XI, which was the basis of providing employment to him and therefore requires investigation/enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties refuted submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that since Late Kamlesh Kumar was admittedly granted employment in 1987, the petition is highly belated particularly in view of the fact that Late Kamlesh Kumar has passed away during his service. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed his locus standi to maintain this writ petition. 5. Upon consideration of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted as indicated in paragraph- 7 of the writ petition that Late Kamlesh Kumar was appointed as Lekhpal in 1987. It is also admitted that subsequently the said person has passed away while in service. In such circumstances, it is not evident from record as to how petitioner has locus to maintain this writ petition with regard to aforesaid complaint, which has been made, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner is said to have woken up to this fact after almost 40 years since Late Kamlesh Kumar was provided employment. 6. In such circumstances this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench